Agenda item

To consider a report from the Assistant Director of Waste & Environmental Services regarding a proposed extension to Nursling Recycling Centre, variations to existing site layout, erection of a new workshop building and the upgrade of parking arrangements at the adjacent paintball centre.

Proposed extension to Nursling Recycling Centre, variations to existing site layout, erection of a new workshop building and the upgrade of parking arrangements at the adjacent paintball centre. 0AD (Application No. 22/00174/CMAS Ref: TV055).

 

Cllr Mark Cooper declared that he had a non-prejudicial personal interest in the matter by virtue of his membership of the Romsey Parish Council.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer introduced the report and referred to an email which Cllr Adams-King had sent to Members of the Committee, where he had detailed points he would like the Committee to consider, including a booking system to control the number of lorry movements to and from the site and an Operational Traffic Management Plan. He confirmed that road improvements would be taken care of as part of the legal requirements.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer explained that the proposal was for an extension to the existing site and that it would allow material to be processed near to the market. The proposal included the following:

 

·       The allowed amount of waste, materials and aggregate imported to the site be increased from 75,000 to 125,000 tonnes per annum.

 

·       The allowed number of total vehicle movements to and from the site be increased from 240 to 350 vehicles and uplift the restriction of vehicles over 7.5 tonnes from 160 to 200.

 

He explained that the site was situated near to the River Test, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

 

He illustrated the traffic route into the site, the proximity of the railway line, the M27 and the public right of way.

 

The Committee was shown aerial photos and it was explained that the existing site sits on sand and gravel in a countryside location on the periphery of the Southampton Urban area.

 

Proposed layout plans and photos were shown illustrating the site and extension area including:

 

·         The paintball site.

·         The access (with passing places) and service roads.

·         The HGV parking relocation.

·         The Landscape and Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan.

·         Location of the new workshop.

·         The Picking Station.

·         Existing parking area.

·         The site entrance.

·         Station Road from the north (showing traffic calming in place).

 

The Principal Development Management Officer explained that the legal agreement covered an extra emphasis on road safety signage, but that there was no evidence of speeding, and that the Operator has examined data from their tracked vehicles, although that does not extend to customer vehicles. The Operator is willing to address issues with the residents and there is a Liaison Panel.

 

He explained the consultations as contained in the report and confirmed that the application would be subject to an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency.

 

There had been 16 representations.

 

The key issues were:

 

·         Highways safety and amenity impacts of HGVs.

·         Air quality impacts.

·         Noise.

·         Acceptability within a countryside setting.

·         Ecological/habitat impacts.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer explained a change to Condition 8, which included a priority route for cyclists with provision for exit signage.

 

The Committee heard deputations from residents Ken Wilson, Penelope Gage, Philip Lomax and Martin Clayton and from Cllr Philip Bundy from Test Valley Borough Council, who all spoke against the application.

 

Their main concerns were as follows:

 

·         Impacts on highways safety for pedestrians, cyclists, horses and their riders.

·         That the current traffic calming does not work.

·         Lee Lane is too narrow for a strategic road.

·         The traffic starts at 6.30 in the morning and wakes up the residents.

·         Volume and size of the traffic.

·         The lorries speed along the roads.

·         Vibration of houses.

·         Noise.

·         Dust.

·         Houses are close to the road.

·         An increase would have significant impacts.

·         Why should the proposal be acceptable in the countryside?

·         Other planning applications are being put forward which will also increase the movement of HGVs.

·         The limits on the number and size of vehicles for highways safety in the extant permission.

·         There is a lack of knowledge regarding what the bunds will be made  of.

·         A lack of a geological survey.

·         Loss of habitat.

·         A lack of adequate mitigation or compensation.

·         A worry that this expansion will lead to further expansions.

 

In response to questions from Members the resident deputees confirmed that:

 

·         Residents’ doors were approximately 3 meters from the road.

 

·        Noise from the motorway, trainline and distribution centre is not noticeable.

 

·         It was not certain whether Test Valley Borough Council had undertaken speed checks.

 

·         No active speed indicator signs have been put up but there are plans to install these.

 

The Committee then heard a deputation from Chris Muir on behalf of the applicant. He stated that:

 

·         The applicant had agreed to both on-site and highway mitigation work.

·         The increase is not considered significant.

·         Four passing places had been agreed on Lee Lane.

·         There had been an independent road safety assessment.

·         There was an Operational Traffic Management Plan, required by condition.

 

In response to questions of the deputee from Members, it was confirmed that:

 

·       Only the topsoil in the extension area would be moved to form the bund and it could also include soil that came into the site. No extra was being imported specifically for the bunds.

·       A hydrogeological assessment had been carried out and no evidence of contamination had been found.

·       The Noise Management Plan dated 2013 related to the concrete crushing/screening activity and an additional one would be prepared for the permit.

 

In response to questions to officers from Members,

 

·        The Principal Development Management Officer confirmed that a hydrogeological assessment had been submitted with no extra information requested by the Environment Agency regarding land contamination investigations and that the County Ecologist was happy with the ecological mitigation scheme.

 

·        The Principal Transport Engineer confirmed that the Highways Authority cannot object unless there is a serious impact on highways safety and that on balance this is the case and no accidents had occurred. She explained that there was a Section 278 agreement covering works to Station Road and suggested a gateway to the residential area, the details of which would be consulted on with residents.

 

·        The Development Planning Manager confirmed that there was a Woodland Management Plan in place, but a copy of the Plan could not be found.

 

Members discussed the differences between the Nursling application and the North Winchester application which they had debated earlier in the meeting in terms of the findings of the Environmental Health Officers in the two District Councils.

 

The Development Planning Manager explained that officers must proceed on the advice of the Environmental Health Officer.

 

Cllr Mark Cooper proposed an amendment to defer a decision on the application on the following terms:

 

To move a deferral of the application in order to:

           

1.    Clarify Test Valley Borough Council’s objection with reference to development in the countryside and Policy COM2.

 

2.    Clarify the impact on the tree vegetation around the site if an extension is permitted.

 

3.    Request Test Valley Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer to review their comments on the impact on the residents in Station Road of the increased frequency of HGV movements, especially with reference to the proximity of these dwellings to the highway.

 

The proposed amendment was read out by the Chairman and Cllr Meenaghan seconded the proposal.

 

The Chairman asked the Committee whether they wanted to debate the proposal. Members agreed unanimously that they did not.

 

Members then voted on whether they wished to adopt the proposed amendment.

 

Favour: 11

Against: 1

Abstentions: 3

 

The recommendation was then amended to deferral and this recommendation was then voted upon.

 

Voting

 

Favour: 12

Against: 1

Abstentions: 2